 From their story, it seems that Sarai (later called Sarah) and Abraham were willing to do whatever it took to have children, including the use of Hagar, Sarai’s maid, as a traditional surrogate. In other words, surrogacy is nothing new.


One of the newer trends in surrogacy legislation is using vital records to track the use of surrogacy and other methods of assisted reproductive technology. A recent bill in the Missouri state legislature seeks to require the name of both the biological parents and any donor parents to be shown on the child’s birth certificate. This bill preserves the legal right of a donor to be free of a legal relationship with a child born as a result of the donation unless legally contracted. However, adult children of a sperm or egg donation made prior to January 1, 2010, can request the identifying information of his or her donor parent, and the idea is that the system would work similarly to an adopted child attempting to find their biological parents.  Children born as a result of a sperm or egg donation made after January 1, 2010, can receive a copy of his or her original birth certificate indicating his or her donor’s identifying and medical history information from the State Registrar and the donation facility used in their conception.


	The arguments raised in favor of such legislation include availability of genetic lineage and allowing citizens to discover their birth or genetic parents, much as adoptees now do under adoption statutes. The reasons why adoptees wish to locate their biological parents are numerous. However, many egg and sperm donors do not wish to have contact, nor do they wish to have any rights or relationship with children resulting from their donations. They choose to donate either for altruistic or financial reasons, but have enough separation from the conception process itself to disconnect from the idea of a child born of their genetic material. 


	A better and more private alternative would be to allow donation agencies to release anonymous health histories and family backgrounds to those seeking genetic information. The “right to know” should rest with the gamete donor, and not with any resultant child. It stands to reason that people are far less likely to donate eggs and/or sperm if they know the donation will not be anonymous, or if at some point a child may come looking for them. Donors are already anonymous; it would simply be a matter of matching a donor code number to the correct recipient.


	There exists a potential legal problem with identifying multiple sets of parents on a birth certificate. While the spirit of the law is recognized, if a birth certificate reflects “intended parents,” and “biological parents,” the use of reproductive technology is immediately implied. While it does not specifically state that the child has any different legal status than any other child (i.e., a child who was not conceived via reproductive technology), the difference is implied, and may be enough to establish a discrimination claim. 